11 votes

For Humans to Progress We MUST Learn to Channel Envy Productivley

I believe more strongly everyday that desire accounts for 99% of 'bad' human action. So, this is an extremely important topic to address. Please try to keep this in mind in the future.

When confronted by sufficient desire to provoke action there are three general options for the actor to choose from:

1. Take what causes the desire by use or threat of force against the possessor.

2. Trade with the possessor for what is desired.

3. Learn how to acquire something equivalent to what is desired through one's own productive capacities.

These can be applied to any situation where desire is present. For instance, suppose one man desires another man's attractive wife. Option 1 may lead to rape at gunpoint. Option 2 could entail paying the couple a sum of money in exchange for a favor. Option 3 may cause the envious man to seek a woman with similar qualities.

I urge you to brainstorm whatever mischievous actions you can conjure up and attempt to find a place where this doesn't apply. Keep in mind that desire also occurs when a person may potentially lose something. Even most of the seemingly unconscionable actions performed by sociopaths result from some manifestation of desire.

For humans to progress, our species must learn to channel desire productively on a large scale. The ever present "option 1" must be avoided.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ah, but we're not talking about physics

We're discussing the 'wants' (I'm NOT going to say desires! lol) of people with myriad differences.

There is enough individuality in the world to safeguard any one item from being wanted enough to deplete it's supply. (How many kids in our school days did NOT want the superman lunchbox simply because it was popular?)

Also, there's enough waste in the current system to cover the current shortfall. Take, for example, that 95% of everything produced today will be in the landfill in 6 months. This is because of planned obsolescence. So, if we doubled a product's lifetime, we essentially double its availability. Picture any product you want and find out what percentage we would need to increase its supply to provide one for all those left wanting (after considering my second paragraph). Compare that number to a multiple of 20 (the number of times 5% can be increased by extending lifetimes to endlessness). I'm pretty sure that we're already pretty close.

Now add in the savings from other non-wastes. For example, if we follow my other suggestions, we would have much less employment (potentially reduced as low as 15% of current through automation) and therefore need less cars. Those are the biggest waste of resources on the planet. Then consider adding in some new mass transportation systems that are really efficient (and fun, btw) and we're up even farther.

Now, to top all that off, let's consider multi-function devices. Consider that we used to produce a separate device for playing tapes, CDs, DVDs, TV, MP3s, gmaes, phone calls, calculating, budgeting, typing, e-mailing, etc.. Each of those devices has a power supply, switches, a display and power use. Now we have a single device that not only does all functions but uses less power than any one of the former. Even televisions now require 1/10th the resources they used to in manufacture.

In non-electronics categories, there are recent techniques and products that allow the owner to endlessly produce (even overproduce) nearly every other need we have and a completely sustainable manner. This includes food, energy, water and every other need that people have. The exceptions that still stand are things like women's make-up and a few other arguable necessities.

In the category of energy, our ultimate source of it is the sun which provides us with 14,000 times more than we need. I'm doubting that we'll run short of that, especially considering that the latest trend is to use less, not more.

Another surprising example is that it now takes the equivalent of about 3 lbs of aluminum to make a home-brew soda pop maker. Should just that one device catch on, we could save 75% of the aluminum now consumed by not making pop cans. If you suggest it can't, then consider the bloody history of the home refrigerator killing off the ice house monopoly.

Couple all I've said here with the fact that while the global population is still growing at this time, it's rate of growth is dramatically shrinking and set to go under the replacement rate very soon. Unlike a positive gain, that's a trend that's nearly impossible to reverse. In short, the world will never top 13 billion people.

So, I ask you to reconsider your statement that absolute abundance is not practical. After all, if all useful possessions were truly abundant, why would people "need" gold?

There would always be something for envious men to covet.

There would always be something for envious men to covet. They would be jealous of what another man wanted and dreamed of, knowing that that mans dreams were better, fuller, and with more meaning than their own petty dreams of vulgarity and want.

The world envious men create is a world filled with clones begging a tyrant to fulfill their covetous dreams. Competition would be deemed as evil, because God forbid anybody should create something of value that another man doesn't possess. That would cause envious men to covet that value, to be tempted to use violence to take what they covet. Producing something of value would be deemed as evil.

The world envious people create is a world of mutually assured destruction; an equality of misery.

Envy is a fools path to equality.


Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/envy?s=t

1.a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
2.an object of envious feeling: Her intelligence made her the envy of her classmates.
3.Obsolete . ill will.
verb (used with object)
4.to regard with envy; be envious of: He envies her the position she has achieved in her profession.
verb (used without object)
5.Obsolete . to be affected with envy.

World English dictionary

1. a feeling of grudging or somewhat admiring discontent aroused by the possessions, achievements, or qualities of another
2. the desire to have for oneself something possessed by another; covetousness
3. an object of envy
— vb , -vies , -vies , -vying , -vied
4. to be envious of (a person or thing)

[C13: via Old French from Latin invidia, from invidēre to eye maliciously, from in- ² + vidēre to see]

Merriam-Websters - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/envy
1: painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
2obsolete : malice
3: an object of envious notice or feeling

-- "To covet with malice" sums up envy in my book.

To be truly envious, you don't even need to take what you unjustly want. You just need to TAKE IT AWAY from the person who possesses the object of your envy. Truly envious people don't necessarily even want to possess; destroying is enough to serve their envy.

Envy can't be "channeled productively", unless your goal is to steal or destroy. Envy is a fools path to equality.

That and "fear."

Excellent post. The other side of that coin is fearing loss of what we hold dear - be it our family, our reputation, our ipod. We can either
1. Let the fear consume us, which often brings about the very loss we fear.
2. Misdirect the fear, and act out in anger, often at some completely unrelated subject.
3.Accept, embrace, or overcome the fear. Whatever form it takes, digging to the heart of the fear and facing it head on is the best bet for channeling the energy spent on "fear" and using it for productive purpose.
The "Dune" books were fiction, but this "Litany against fear" is still awesome:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

In my mind, 'fear of loss' = 'envy of one's own possessions'

In other words, "I want that. Don't take it." If lost, the envy becomes more recognizable, but it's the same thing - desire for possessions.

I fall on the same side of the importance of names as did Richard Feynman.

Envious of ones own possessions - ROFL

So now a person is envious of their own possessions? Booger eating jibberish... Are you a Nihilist too?

Remember what I said about the true meaning of envy? To be envious you don't even necessarily want to possess the object of your unjust desire. For an envious man, it's enough to just take it away from the person you're envious of, and here you are, trying to define the person who has possession of what you unjustly want as envious. Let's free him of his envy!? Let's serve justice by looting our neighbors, taking possession of their possessions, freeing them of their envy... ROFL

YOU are the envious one attempting to put your nature to good use, but you can't figure out how, because there's no productive use for envy.

What you're talking about is greed, and covetous men fuel greed as well, because why would anybody want to be charitable with people who hate them; the fear of God? "Love thy enemy?"

Wow... God wins again. He's always right. Even a charity case will serve Gods will, and being one isn't something to be ashamed of. Being a charity case is one of the hardest roads to travel in life. It's filled with tears, pain, and longing for the dignity so many people would deny them.

Plus 1 for provoking inquiry.

Plus 1 for provoking inquiry.

But I'm confused: What do you mean channel envy productively on a large scale?

Punctuation usage:

1) Single quotes are used inside of double quotation material, a quote. Their use is quote within a quote.

2) May: permission. Might: possibility; denotes a conditional statement.

One way to discern their difference is strength. Example: If he possesses the might to lift that rock, water will flow.

The more material read farther back in time will show the misuse of these two words and that it spread tremendously in the 1990s in media. By far, more students today don't know those words' (proper) definitions. Transitions in language are subtle and few people catch them. Because so, conflation of meanings occur, one meaning fades out and language is altered, leaving a void where distinction and recall were, ending in miscommunication -- especially between people born in different eras.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

As long as ideas are conveyed effectively...

I try to refrain from correcting others grammar. That's just my policy.

'on a large scale' was meant to convey 'regarding a large portion of the population.' I believe 99% of people 'got' this.

Notice that I intentionally used single quotes again (something which I haven't done often in the past but have used in rebellion to your correction in this case). I'm aware of the 'rules,' but in the absence of the need for nested quotes, that rule seems arbitrary to me.

My goal in my comment was to

My goal in my comment was to improve your knowledge of punctuation. It was to teach, and intrinsic in teaching is the telling of right and wrong and explaining their differences. I wasn't insulting you or averting the topic, hence the two parts of my comment.

The first part, a couple lines, was replying to your post and my second part was about grammar and punctuation. But I thought you would be someone who would want to use punctuation correctly because I think you recognize language is significant in human action and that because most people use language incorrectly, you, someone in the minority of people concerning language, someone with that recognition, would want be sure your use of it is correct.

My explanation was meant to teach, nothing else. Where I see language eroding and the person of that erosion didn't intend to erode it and that he is sincere in learning, which I think you are, I comment to teach.

Analagous to this issue is swearing. When two people are talking with each other, they know their subject and the ins and outs of their conversation. They are in position of making sense of all words in their conversation, including swearing, a type of emphasis, a type of clarification. But when people uninvolved in the conversation hear those two people swearing, the uninvolved people, really, those who are immature, those who don't discern right and wrong, will believe the portion of conversation they heard is enough evidence to judge the conversation and believe swearing is clarification. This belief is the validator of swearing. This process is how swearing spreads and is why it's used nonchalantly, a degeneration of the mind.

Most cases of swearing, even by people conversant in language, are misplaced and cause nothing but turmoil. Only in a few instances should swearing occur. In the spirit of avoiding retardation and advancing thoughtful behavior, I stray from swearing and I use language correctly and if I use it incorrectly, I correct myself or welcome someone to correct me and explain the correction. I want to spread what is right rather than what is wrong. From my perspective, the world has enough wrongness and what's wrong gains ground daily. To combat it requires deft people and the starting point of that combat for those people is language.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

You left out the apostrophe

that shows possessive plural tense on "other." I'll stop grading now, you fail.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I noticed that after I wrote it but wasn't too concerned since..

I was being rebellious to a grammar nazi in the first place (one of my only pet peeves).

I make it a point to never correct pronunciation or grammar as long as I can understand what is trying to be conveyed. Doing so never wins any hearts and minds, and I will always stand up to it.

When people resort to trying to make others appear to be unintelligent through trivial means such as that, it is because they know they are on the wrong side of the argument and don't want to address what is actually being discussed.